Lighthope
-
Posts
483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Dev Diaries
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Lighthope
-
-
I gotta agree. Even typing "Kiev" into Microsoft maps pulls up "Kyiv".
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Jevta03 said:
when does the cracked version come out?
The what? Is that a reference to the old Cracked Magazine?
-
I have to admit, I never bought the idea of a King being a spy. Never used him as one. Didn't sit right with me.
-
What about disinformation?
Can your spy be tricked into delivering the wrong information to you? Such as reporting enemy troops where there are none? (Thus misdirecting your attention/forces.) Misreports their strength/economy/plans?
After all, spies can't be perfect, and introducing this imperfection would make things very interesting.
BTW, loved the flavour of this Dev Diary!
-
2 hours ago, Arnold said:
The defenders' morale breaks when there is no food, just as with armies, so taking a starved town is way easier.
It's been a while, but if the timer (food) runs out, don't you just get the town?
Hence why the computer always comes out to fight before that happens.
-
12 hours ago, frujin said:
Attacker has no benefit. They just need to prepare the attack and breach defenses enough ...
That is kind of the point I was making. No benefit to the attacker, so why bother besieging beyond what you have to?
But I bow to your decision.
-
20 minutes ago, Zaza said:
listen to constructive criticism only from players that play the beta (but do not stray too far from the vision), and don't ever think that the silent majority is somehow beneath a very vocal minority.
That's a little too elitist for me. Just because someone isn't in the beta doesn't mean they might not have something valuable to add.
No one here is in the beta yet. Should we wipe out everything said so far?
And the "silent majority" is often code for "people who agree with me but I have no evidence of."
-
1 hour ago, Zaza said:
But it isn't supposed to receive a benefit by maintaining a siege. 🙂
And isn't this the purpose of a castle? To buy time, call reinforcements, etc?
Yes, a castle was built to give time to call in reinforcements.
But with the option of the attacker to just attack, what benefit is there to the attacker to siege? Why not just attack right now?
Historically, an attacker would besiege a castle in the hopes that they would just give up without a fight. Many times, a deal was struck between attacker and defender that if relief did not come within a certain amount of time, the defender would surrender. This way, both attacker and defender would come out (relatively) unharmed.
In KoH, though, there is absolutely no benefit to the attacking side to siege.
M2:TW as this same problem. I would siege a castle just long enough to build siege equipment and then attack. Waiting was useless as the defender would always sally forth just before the timer expired.
There needs to be a benefit to the attacker for besieging. Such as the defender should losing troops as the siege goes on.
-
16 hours ago, William Blake said:
What was your question again?
It's in the OP.
-
1 hour ago, William Blake said:
But it probably won't happen because it would look as too complex for a target audience.
I think you may be looking for a game that is more complex than KoH is or wants to be.
-
I don't recall if they said anything about revamping the benefits of sieges.
In KoH1, sieges were practically worthless for an attacking army. All they did was give the defenders time to call in reinforcements.
There was no benefit to maintaining a siege.
Any word of a re-work?
-
11 hours ago, Chinggis Qaan said:
all marshall's turn into rebel army's and it's not even due too many spy's xD
I hate it when that happens!
-
10 hours ago, Battousai said:
Though would love some big improvements....
So far I've been seeing a lot of changes. KoH2 is definitely going to be worth looking at.
Diplomacy has changed. Princesses have changed. Those were my two biggest pet peeves about the original.
Combat was never my specialty. I just go in and whack things. But there are a lot of changes coming to that.
What specific "big improvements" are you looking for?
-
17 minutes ago, William Blake said:
August, with release November / December
Source?
-
I know this is an impossible question, but like Alice I too try to believe three impossible things before breakfast.
Any estimate on when a Beta might be available?
-
4 hours ago, William Blake said:
Would you be ok with mostly AI kingdoms on a map, but an ability for a human player to join a running game and take over an existing AI kingdom to play for
No. Pick your kingdom at the beginning and that is yours until the Second Coming.
4 hours ago, William Blake said:or human players leave in a middle of a game and their kingdoms going under AI control?
I might go for that idea. That way someone can keep playing if someone else drops out.
-
7 hours ago, William Blake said:
Would you drop multiplayer all together if it made single player release date one week sooner?
I seriously doubt multiplayer coding takes only a single week.
But I'll play along. No, I would not drop multiplayer. Just because I won't use it doesn't mean others aren't interested.
-
3 hours ago, Gile said:
which means no weather effects in the game
I believe they actually said there would be no weather in the game.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, William Blake said:
Do you care about multiplayer at all?
No. Not at all.
Just casting my vote.
-
20 hours ago, Gile said:
I would love to see weather effects.
I agree wholeheartedly. There needs to be weather that affects combat. Summer, winter, local showers.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, BC Knight said:
Option - you click on the unit icon to train unit and get it instantly - It's just 25% filled with men but you are free to go and it gets filled up to 100% automatically - no need to stay in the castle.
No, I don't like that.
3 minutes ago, BC Knight said:Someone can say that's realistic - the marshal is in the castle and trains people
That's not realistic. Marshals don't train recruits. They have sergeants for that. Marshals come and scoop up those who are ready to fight. (And sometimes those who aren't.)
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, William Blake said:
Unprotected land is meaningless in KoH. What enemy can do to my land? Raze some settlements? I can't care less. Start a siege on a city? Well its a lot of time you lock an army into a siege for my blob to come and crush it.
That is a game flaw, one that I hope they will address.
I think it's been mentioned that sacking provinces yields little benefit. There needs to be a reason to protect your province features other than a minor, non-noticeable penalty.
18 hours ago, William Blake said:Loosing a single marshal on the other hand is a significant blow.
Depends. I use throwaway marshals to control the rebels. As they gain in experience, I promote them to attack my enemies.
No one is suggesting you use a maxed out Marshal to go against two maxed out Marshals. But it remains a strategic choice to concentrate your forces or spread them out.
5 hours ago, William Blake said:And they will not be constantly in a battle somewhere I honestly don't understand why adding few clicks or orders per battle would be such a burden.
Because that crosses my line of micromanagement for too little benefit. It's subjective. You like it. I don't.
3 hours ago, Ivory Knight said:Fear of driving the gameplay towards players trying to attain all 65 resources.
I think getting rid of the minor victory will help with that. Though all the resources have value, and in the end you want to acquire them.
-
6 hours ago, William Blake said:
Ability to reinforce from outside makes all single marshal moves dangerous forcing player to have max force all together, 2 marshals,
Sure, if you don't mind leaving more of your land unprotected. It's a strategic choice to have lots single armies or few multiple armies.
Take your two marshal army. I'll take a single marshal army and stomp on your lands far enough away that you can't get to me in time.
6 hours ago, William Blake said:I'm puzzled how I cannot get this point across,
Because it's not a point. It's an opinion. One which I disagree with.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, William Blake said:
the point was that mechanics that allow long battle on a global map to be reinforced from a far away by another full marshal army was bad for single player war and will be lame for multiplayer too.
I disagree with that point. The possibility of reinforcement is something you need to consider before attacking or defending.
Kyiv not Kiev!
in General Discussion
Posted
Yeah, don't do that.
If they aren't going to play the game, their opinion really doesn't count.
You have enough support here from real players. You don't need to "stuff the ballot box."